The Elections in the Worker Curia in St. Petersburg

Published:Prostiye Rechi, No. 3, January 30, 1907. Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to the text inProstiye Rechi.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 12,

      pages62-69.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Theelections of workers’ delegates are an extremely important event
in the political life of Russia and in the his tory of our labour movement, an
event that has not yet been properly appreciated.

Forthe first timeallparties with any standing among the proletariat
have comebefore the massesof the workers, not with general programmes
or slogans, but with a definite practical question:to the candidates of
which partywill the masses of the workers entrust the defence of their
interests? As everyone knows, the system of elections in the worker curia is, of
course, far removed from proper democratic representation. Nevertheless, the
masses of the workers are making themselves heard in the elections. And the
broad masses of the workers are witnessinga struggle between parties,
that is, betweendefinitepolitical parties,for the first
timein Russia.

Electionsof workers’ delegates have already taken place in many parts of the
country; but nothing like complete and exact information on the struggle of the
parties in these elections is as yet available. The newspapers give only the
most general, approximate, andsuperficialconclusions. Unless our
Party officials, and especially the advanced workers themselves, undertake the
necessary and extremely important task ofstudyingthe course and the
results of the elections in the worker curia, we can definitely say that we
shall lose extremely valuable and necessary material for the future development
of Party work and Party agitation.

Thegeneral impression produced by the elections in the worker curia in Russia
is unanimously summed up by all newspapers as follows: complete victory for the
extreme Lefts, primarily the Social-Democrats, the Socialist-Revolutionaries
coming second.

Theelections have fully borne out the fundamental thesis of Social-Democracy:
as a class, the proletariat is revolutionary. The proletarianmassesare Social-Democratic in their aspirations and sympathies. The proletariat is
the most revolutionary class in Russia.

Allthe talk about the Social-Democratic Party in Russia not being a workers’
party has in fact beenrefutedby the elections. Only liberals who are
deliberately lying, or opportunists who indulge in idle words can now doubt themass proletarian characterof the Social-Democratic Party in Russia.

Beforepassing from general to particular conclusions, we must make the
reservation thatnothinglike complete data isyet available.
However, we consider it not only possible, but absolutely necessaryto
suggesta number of further conclusions, not with the idea of claiming to
have exhausted the question, but for the purpose ofsubmitting it, as a
question of vast importance, for the consideration ofallcomrades, evoking an exchange of ideas, the collection of material, etc.

Thestriking thing revealed by the first newspaper re ports is the difference
between Russia proper and Poland, which is much more advanced economically,
culturally and politically. In Russia, in St. Petersburg and Moscow, at any
rate, there arenofrankly bourgeois parties that enjoy even limited
support among the proletariat. The Social-Democrats preponderate absolutely;
considerably less influence is exercised by extreme Left bourgeois democrats
who regard themselves as socialists, namely, the Socialist Revolutionary
Party. There are no Cadets among the workers, or at any rate, a very
insignificant number of them.

InPoland there is a frankly bourgeois party that stands to the Right
of the Cadets, and has played a conspicuous part in the
elections—theNarodowci(Narodowi-Demokraci—National-Democrats).[2]This fact cannot
be attributed to police and military persecution. The Polish bourgeoisie,which skilfully plays upon the national oppression of all Poles and the
      religious persecution of all Catholics, seeks and finds some support among
      the masses, and, of course, among the Polish peasantry.

Itis, however, self-evident that it would be absurd to deduce from this
difference that there is some exceptional advantage intrinsic in Russian
backwardness. This is not the case. The explanation is much simpler: it is due
to historical and economic, and not to national, differences. There are in
Russia immeasurably more survivals of serfdom among the masses of the people,
in the rural districts, in the agrarian system—hence the more primitive,
more direct revolutionary sentiments among the peasantry and among the working
class, which is closely connected with the peasantry. This revolutionary
sentiment undoubtedly expresses a general democratic (which in essence means
bourgeois-democratic) protest, rather than proletarian class-consciousness. And
then, our bourgeoisie is less developed, less class-conscious, less skilled in
political struggle. It neglects activities among the proletariat not so much be
cause it could not win a certain section away from us, but because it stands in
less need of popular support (than in Europe and Poland). For the time being, it
can rely on privilege, bribery, and brute force. The time will come, however,
when in this country, too, all sorts of people of bourgeois origin will preach
such abominations as nationalism, something in the nature of Christian
democracy, anti-Semitism and so on, to the masses of the workers.

Letus now pass on to Russia proper. First of all, there is the noteworthy
difference between St. Petersburg and Moscow. In Moscow the Social-Democrats
gained a complete victory over the Socialist-Revolutionaries. According to some
reports, not yet fully verified it is true, about 200 Social-Democratic
delegates were elected, as against a mere 20 Socialist-Revolutionary delegates!

InSt. Petersburg the reverse is the case: everyone is astonished at theunexpectedlyhigh percentage of Socialist-Revolutionary delegates. Of
course, the Social-Democrats predominate over the Socialist-Revolutionaries,
but not overwhelmingly. The proportion of Socialist-Revolutionaries is
estimated at 33 per cent or even (though thisis hardly correct) at 40 per cent. Whichever figure we take for the time being
until the detailed returns, are available, we can understand why rank-and-file
Social-Democrats in St. Petersburg feel thatthey have been beateniii
the worker curia. Even if one-third of the delegates are
Socialist-Revolutionaries, that isactuallya defeat for the
Social-Democrats in
the capital—a defeat in comparison with what we have seen in the rest of
Russia, and with what all of us, as Social-Democrats, regard as normal and
essential.

Thisis a fact of tremendous importance.... In St. Petersburg the extreme Left
bourgeois democrats deprived the socialists of theiroverwhelmingpreponderance in the worker curia. It is our duty to give this fact the closest
attention.AllSocial-Democrats must set to work to study this
phenomenon carefully and find the correct explanation for it.

Thegeneral impression of the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats, who are amazed
by the results of the elections of January 7 and 14, can be summed up as
follows: (1) it was at thebiggestfactories, the strongholds of the
most class-conscious, the most revolutionary proletariat, that
Socialist-Revolutionaries inflicted the most telling defeat on the
Social-Democrats; (2) the Socialist-Revolutionaries defeatedmostlyand in the main theMenshevik Social-Democrats. Where a
Socialist-Revolutionary candidate opposed a Bolshevik Social-Democratic
candidate, the Social-Democrats were far more often,in most cases in
fact, victorious.

Thesupreme significance of both these conclusions is obvious. We must therefore
take good care that these are not mere impressions butconclusionsdrawn from exact and verified data that can leave no room for two
interpretations. It is, of course, extremely unlikely, almost impossible even,
that the consensus of opinion of active Social-Democrats in the most diverse
districts of St. Petersburg is mistaken. Of course, it would be ridiculous
pedantry to expect revolutionaries who are at present overwhelmed with election
work to compile exact and accurate statistics; nevertheless, the principal data,
the main facts and figurescan and mustbe collected, for they will be
essential inallour Social-Democratic work in St. Petersburg for a
long time to come.

Belowwe deal with this question in greater detail (see the article: “The
      Struggle Between the Social-Democrats and the Socialist-Revolutionaries in
      the Elections in the Worker Curia in St. Petersburg”). We shall here
      confine ourselves to an appraisal of the political significance of thisrelativedefeat of Social-Democracy at the elections in the
    St. Petersburg worker curia.

Firstof all, it must be noted that the numerical preponderance of
Social-Democratic delegates is obviously an indication of the greaternumber
of factoriesin which the Social-Democrats have organisational groups. More
detailed information will probably confirm what the Social-Democrats observed
in the days of freedom in October, namely, that the Socialist-Revolutionaries
carry on no effective, prolonged and serious organisational work among the
proletariat, but just grab at any opportunity that may crop up and push
resolutions through at meetings when feeling runs high, taking advantage of any
moment of excitement to win votes through frothy and flashy
“revolutionary” phrases and speeches.

Thiselement of the Socialist-Revolutionary victory will, in all
probability, be noted by every conscientious investigator as a feature of the
recent elections in the worker curia in St. Petersburg. The whole point here, in
the final analysis, is that a “revolutionary” petty-bourgeois party
is incapable of steady and consistent proletarian activities; at the slightest
change in the workers’ temper, it completely disappears from the working-class
suburbs. Only at certain moments is it able to exploit the as yet insufficient
political education of the masses, “captivating” them with their
ostensibly broad presentation of questions (actually nebulous, intellectualist
flummery), playing on their undeveloped class-consciousness, demagogically
utilising the traditional “back-to-the-land” urge in cases where
rural connections still exist, and so on and so forth.

Naturally,the bourgeois character of the revolution leads to the working-class
districts being “raided” from time to time by hordes of radical and
truly revolutionary bourgeois youths who have no class backing and who, when
ever there are signs of a new upsurge or a new onslaught of the revolution, turn
instinctively to the proletariat asthe only mass that is engaged in a seriousfightfor
freedom. Socialist-Revolutionary speakers at workers’ meetings are a kind of
stormy petrel indicating that the proletariat is in fine fettle, has recuperated
somewhat, and is regaining strength after former defeats, that something is
beginning to ferment among proletarians, something deep and wide spread,which
will make them grapple again with the old order.

Acomparison of the October and “Duma” periods with that of the
present elections, and a simple statistical assessment of the number of
permanent Socialist-Revolutionary organisational groups would undoubtedly show
the truth of this explanation.

Butit would, of course, be very foolishto confine ourselvesto this
explanation, and shut our eyes to the fact that it was at the largest factories,
where the workers are most class-conscious and experienced in battle, that the
Socialist-Revolutionariesdefeatedthe Social-Democrats. Fortunately,
we already know that, in fact, the extreme Left bourgeois democrats
defeated not Social-Democracy, but theopportunist vulgarisationof
Social-Democracy.

Therevolutionary bourgeois democrats shirked battle with revolutionary
Social-Democrats and, in fact, defeated only those who trail along in the wake
of the non-revolutionary bourgeoisie, thosewho advocate blocs with the
Cadets. This is most clearly corroborated by the evidence of
Social-Democratic Party workers on the character of the speeches delivered by
the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and by facts on the Socialist-Revolutionaries’
“victory” over the Mensheviks.

TheSt. Petersburg elections took place on January 7 and 14. On January 7 the
workers of St. Petersburg learned that the thirty-one Mensheviks had broken away
from the Social-Democratic Conference in order to bargain with the Cadets for
seats in the Duma. For the whole following week the St. Petersburg bourgeois
press exulted and rejoiced, praising the Mensheviks, inviting them to be seated
next to the Cadets, and applauding their renunciation of the revolution, their
joining the“opposition bloc”, “the
moderate-socialist parties”, etc., etc.

Therout of the Mensheviksin the big factories is the first warningthe proletarian masseshave given the vacillating opportunist
intellectuals!

TheMensheviks have turned towards the Cadets—the proletariat of
      St. Petersburg have turned away from the Mensheviks.

TheSocialist-Revolutionaries took advantage of the split among the
Social-Democrats, took advantage of the workers’ indignation at the Cadet-like
Mensheviks, and did so with brazen alacrity. In the working-class suburbs they
attacked the Social-Democrats for forming blocs with the Cadets (without saying
anything about the Bolsheviks and the St. Petersburg Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P.), but in the citythey themselves were bargaining with the
Cadets!It is now clear why they have been so carefully concealing from the
public their views and their resolutions on blocs with the Cadets, and their
blocs with the Popular Socialists,and so on and so

			     forth.[1]They commit
all the sins of Menshevismclandestinely, but when they confront the
workers they reap applause and win votes by castigating Menshevism.

Theorganiser of the Semyannikov Subdistrict League of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party, whose report we quote below, writes in that
report on the elections at the huge Semyannikov Works, as follows:
despite the Bolsheviks’ protests, the Mensheviks nominated

Comrade X.[3]“At an election meeting at the works, a
Socialist-Revolutionary intellectual spoke and severely criticised Comrade
X’s Menshevik arguments in favour of an agreement with the Cadets, and, as
the workers said, Comrade X ’was in the soup’.” In the eyes of the masses
the defeat of the Mensheviks was complete. “When the masses
learned,” we read in the same report, “that the Social-Democratic
candidates were in favour of an agreement with the Cadets and that those
candidates were Mensheviks,they said then and there[at the
works]that they would not vote for the Mensheviks.”

Thismakes it quite clear why, during the election of delegates for the
Social-Democratic conference, the Mensheviks were opposed to voting in
accordance with platforms, i.e., were opposed to adirectvote of the
masses themselves on the question of blocs with the Cadets!

“Atthe Nevsky Stearin Works, in the Menshevik factory subdistrict, a
worker, N. M., who had been nominated as a delegate, declared bluntly: ’Now
that I have heard that the Social-Democrats are in favour of an agreement with
the Cadets, I am going over to the Socialist-Revolutionaries.’And he did
go over, and was elected delegate!!”

“Atthe Nevsky Stearin Works, in the Menshevik factory subdistrict, a
worker, N. M., who had been nominated as a delegate, declared bluntly: ’Now
that I have heard that the Social-Democrats are in favour of an agreement with
the Cadets, I am going over to the Socialist-Revolutionaries.’And he did
go over, and was elected delegate!!”

Suchis the shameful state to which Social-Democracy has been brought by these
miserable opportunists, who are capable of breaking away from the workers’ party
on the eve of the elections, in order to haggle with the Cadets for seats.

Theonly conclusion to be drawn from this by a Social-Democrat who values the
honour and good name of the proletarian party is that ruthless war must be waged
on Menshevism in St. Petersburg. We must open the eyes of the workers to the
people whose Cadet policy is driving the workers away from socialism and towards
the revolutionary bourgeoisie.

TheSocialist-Revolutionaries have captured the biggest factories from the
Mensheviks. We must recapture them from the Socialist-Revolutionaries. We must
send new agitators and fresh revolutionary Social-Democratic literature to the
biggest factories and explain to the workers that they have fallen out of the
hands of the Cadet-loving Mensheviks into the hands ofCadet-lovingSocialist-Revolutionaries.

Thewhole course of the St. Petersburg election campaign, all the facts of the
endless vacillations of the Mensheviks, of their efforts to enter a
counter-revolutionary bloc with the Cadets (after they broke away from the
workers’ party), and of their bargaining,jointly with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, with the Cadets for seats, give us a wealth of
ammunition with
which to fightboth the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionariesat
the big factories in St. Petersburg.

Thebig factories must and will become strongholds of revolutionary
Social-Democracy, inaccessible to opportunists and petty-bourgeois
revolutionaries alike.

[1]They published the resolution of their St. Petersburg Committeeafterthe elections in the worker curia.—Lenin

[2]Narodowci(Narodowi-Democraci–National-Democrats)— the
counter-revolutionary nationalist, party of the
Polish bourgeoisie, formed in 1897. During the 1905-07 revolution the Narodowci
became the main Polish counter-revolutionary party, the “Polish
Black Hundreds” (Lenin). p. 63

[3]Comrade X–V. G. Chirkin, who in 1907
supported the Mensheviks.